Genres

Visitors Review

johnfrost_76 2012-05-23 04:31:14

From bad to worse to downright lazy

Having read the book which I thought was an enjoyable if ratherunoriginal venture into the fantasy adventure genre (elves and dwarfsaren't mandatory y'know! Try not to be quite such a carbon copy ofTolkein), I decided to go see the film in the hopes that it could add anew dimension to the story. Boy, was I wrong.I knew I was in trouble in the first 5 mins with the completelyinaccurate description of the Dragon Riders' downfall. I held out hopethat the likes of Jeremy Irons and John Malkovich would deliver theirusual flawless performances and save the film. Considering what theyhad to work with, hope was slim. Jeremy seemed rather bored most of thetime, John overacted so badly I couldn't help but think it was his wayof making up for having a supporting role. Robert Carlyle's portrayalof Durza was ridiculously pantomimey, coming off as just plain creepyrather than scary and dark.Add to this Plot holes big enough to fit the titanic, a two dimensionallead performance, missing and/or defiled characters, and a lacklustrescript. And that's putting it mildly.What happened to Arya being an elf? What happened to Saphira beinggiven her name by Eragon? Who cast the twenty-something Joss Stone asthe middle-aged herbalist Angela? Where were the dwarfs? Were thoseUrgals, or just extras from 'Last of the Mohicans' who wandered intothe wrong sound stage by mistake? And above all, what happened to theENTIRE PLOT from the moment they reach Farthen Dur?? The list of suchquestions goes on.The whole thing was rushed and hap-hazardly strung together. Theyshould've spent some time and a bit of effort, and made a good 3 hourmovie (see Lord of the Rings) instead of a bad 90 minute one. The onlyreason I could think of for Christopher Paolini allowing this travestyto reach cinemas is that they threw a truck load of money at him. Thesfx were slick, but you think they could've at least found money in thebudget to give Arya a pair of pointy ears! Not even Rachel Weisz'sadmittedly solid performance as Saphira leant any credibility to thismovie.Anyone remember 2000's Dungeons & Dragons? No, I didn't either. Until Isaw Eragon. THAT's how bad it was. Mr Paolini, Hollywood has bent youover, pulled your pants down, and punched your donut good. Shame onyou! My advice to anyone planning to see this movie - skip it and rentLord of the Rings again. Or, wait until Eragon is out on DVD, buy itand use the disc as a novelty coaster. Your money will be better spentthat way.Still, one good thing has come of this - I now view the book with arenewed appreciation. In fact I may have to read it again simply towipe this train wreck of a movie from my memory.**To those people who keep saying 'its a only a children's book' Idisagree. Paolini wrote it when he was fifteen, and it is aimed atpeople of that age and upwards. There is nothing childish about the waythe book is written (and some of the scenes are certainly graphicenough to EXCLUDE younger children) so there is no excuse for thefilm's short-comings to be reasoned away with 'well, its only a kidsmovie'**PS. What's with the comically homoerotic wrestling scene between Eragonand Roran? Bizarre.

cychosis-1 2012-05-22 10:58:22

This movie is the new pardigm for the word "STUPID."

This movie is stupid and a complete waste of time. First of all, we allshould have known it was bad when we saw that Jeremy Irons AND JohnMalkovich were cast in it. Remember Dungeons and Dragons?! I wanted tothrow-up. Remember that Joan of Arc movie? OMFG! If you watch thisfilm, and enjoy it, I hope you get eaten by a large giraffe, becauseyou are utterly devoid of common sense and good taste.This movie was designed to fill in the void created by those LOTR nerdsthat no longer have anything to see, other than the Harry Potheadmovies, and they only watch that because they are perverted. If thepowers that be want to make a good fantasy flick, they should hurry upand make the Elric of Melnibone saga. At least then we can watch allthe morons going around shouting the name "MOORCOCK."

vampiresan 2012-05-17 09:26:05

The book was written by a 16 year old but the film was far more juvenile

Why are so many adaptations of reasonable books so badly done? Is itthat the scriptwriters and directors want to remove themselves so muchfrom the source material that they feel the need to stuff it upaltogether. Frankly nothing saves this film... it gravitates betweenbeing unbelievably slow and sentimental to fights scenes that are sofast and badly directed that it is impossible to tell what the hell isgoing on. Did they run out of money and decide not to hire a focuspuller?The acting by all concerned is woeful but they are really not helped bythe trite and simplistic dialogue given to them. The dialogue in thebook wasn't anywhere near this bad so why didn't they just use some ofthat?Rachel Weiss as the voice of Sapphira got the shortest straw with mostof her dialogue being stupid, repetitive or downright pointless. Theycould have cut the whole dragon talking thing and no real informationwould have been lost. Overall it was so badly done that I am sure it is something that allconcerned will drop from their resumes very soon.

jesperdich 2012-05-16 19:42:14

...can't get any worse.

My expectations was low before I saw the movie, but even so I gotdisappointed, very disappointed. I had read the very bad reviews Eragongot, but though that it can't be so bad as all that... it could andactually it was worse than what most reviews say. Even though this maynot be the worst movie I have ever seen, I can't recall them. If youwill do you self a favor don't see this movie. Almost everything arewrong with the movie, from the acting to costumes to the dialogue, butthe prize goes to the pacing. The movie jumps from scene to scene at anincredible speed, nothing is ever explained and nothing everdeveloped... It doesn't matter if you have read the book or not, if youhave read the book you have a chance to follow the film, since you mayfill in the blanks, but on the other side you will know how they havemanhandled everything from the characters to the plot to the races. AndI'm not a particular great fan of the book, but it'did deserve muchbetter that this piece of cr.. . Last I have only three wishes; 1.Don't make the sequel, 2. Never, ever, ever let Stefen Fangmeier makeanother movie, and 3. Never, ever let Peter Buchman write a script everagain.

a_ngox 2012-05-09 22:07:42

a rushed production movie

Well, I have read many comments before I decided to put my own opinionfor this movie. Most of the comments are from people who read the novelin advance before watching the movie. Therefore, I'd like to give youall an input from someone who had no idea what Eragon is about.Story-wise, it has a lot of potentials and could have been filmed muchbetter. As an audience, I feel like the production was rushed andcomprised it into only 100 minutes. Take an example from Harry Potteror LOTR, in which the movies are based on novels as well, they have alonger period to let the audience get the feeling of HP or LOTR'sworlds. However, Eragon does not have this most essential factor. Thus,the audiences were kicked around and pushed them to follow a ridiculouspace.The fast pace is also affecting the characters' developments. Thus forinstance is that Eragon can change from a complete loser into hero inone night. This is a joke and insult for the audience.I'd say the weakest points for Eragon are the main character himselfand the retarded-pace. Some of the jokes were dry, but it is stillunderstandable.Eragon, as a farm boy, found a mysterious 'stone' in a restrictedjungle when he was hunting. The moment he touched the stone, his fatewas about to change.

thiagosgbr 2012-05-09 02:03:53

Over-budgeted B movie

Oh my goodness, where to start? Well, I should first say that I've readthe first book of the Inheritance Trilogy, and am not a big fan. Iabsolutely adore fantasy literature, but this one seemed to beoverloaded with clichés, something like 'What would happen if Star Warstook place in Middle Earth?'. Nonetheless, it made for an entertainingreading. But this review is not on the book but on the movie, so movingon...My point is that all the appealing parts of the book (Saphira'snobility and relationship to Eragon, his learning of magic, thesubtleties of politics between Varden, Dwarfs, the king, the Urgalsetc.) are not there, not to mention the butchered storyline. The filmis a messy sequence of action scenes with cheesy, cheesy dialogue andpunch lines - at some point I stopped taking it seriously and waslaughing out loud in the theater. Editing is worse than most TV mademovies, with endless slow motion close-ups. The acting is terrible, butI can't blame all the excellent actors (and what a line-up: Irons,Weisz, Carlyle, Malkovich!), they had some bad material to work with.And Speleers seems like an unfortunate choice, bland as a young actorcan be.In a nutshell, I would recommend avoiding it. If you're a big fan andcan't help, be prepared for a major disappointment.

Hsm2012-1 2012-05-06 23:47:57

Eragon

I think that it is OK. Based on the book where a boy finds a stonewhile hunting in the Spine. They nailed that. He hides it from hisUncle and Cousin Roran ( Chris Egan ). And protecting his dragon hisuncle dies. They nailed that too! Then Bron ( Jeremy Irons ) takesEragon ( Ed Speleers) under his wing and guides him in magic, swordskills, and Dragon ways. They follow KEY POINTS of the book. They leaveout traveling time, minor scrambles and the desert. They also don'tspend time used in the book to describe everything! It maybe be a badmovie for some people. But, some people may like it. I respect all, andI know that it wasn't perfect. You need to give people more credit.They spent months working on this and all you can do is dis it. Thinkabout what they go through, its not just fun. They did also leave outthe cat and Katrina. Even though they credit her. I hope to see Eldestin theaters and I also hope to see Eragon on DVD. Its worth thinkingabout seeing, but not twice. And remember, nothings better than readingthe book.

stephi91 2012-05-06 11:18:46

this movie was pretty good!

I liked it.... bit of a rip off from lord of the rings... but stillgood. its funny how everybody finds something to complain about....ifits not the plot, its the actors and their acting, if its not thedirectors its the effects and so forth. so if the lord of the ringsseries was a little over powering, try Eragon. it was pretty good. butin relation to others comments about the acting being absolute sh*t , ididn't find it sh*t at all! so whatever movie your going to see or wantto watch don't listen to movie critics or people who can't findanything bad about the movie so make some stuff up, go see it! whatever floats your boat!!!oh and i was just reading other peoples comments about how the book wasso different, so much better than the movie......its exactly the sameas the harry potter series .... your safe so long as you haven't readthe book. but i do have to say they did cut out too much of the bookand focused too much on the little things rather than the importantparts!! it isn't such a let down unless you've read the book becauseyou don't know what your missing out on. how ever i still enjoyed themovie but the books were better!

dnlgg 2012-05-05 03:12:51

has a lotta charm but suffers from some stupid dialogue and plotting

Eragon is a very uneven film, some parts are very well done and manageto have an amazing amount of subtly and heart. Eragon, Saphira, andBrohm, (sp?) are very likable and one wishes more of the film was builtaround them, but most of the other characters are barely sketched out.If the studio that made this film cared enough to actually go all outand make something of real quality rather than cut corners to get afilm out quickly this could have been a real classic. you can almostsee where they were taking their time and building up a good movie andthen someone came along and rushed them to the next thing. the entirefilm feels very rushed. Some of the dialogue is great and some of it isthe worst possible rubbish. This film is worth seeing at a matinée orfor a dragon fanatic. For compelling characters and storyline it is aninteresting, charming coulda been. I haven't read the book but seeingall the great ideas in this film I definitely am going to read it.

amillsey 2012-05-04 15:38:49

Why the bad reviews?

Reviews of Eragon, particularly from critics, have been very mixed, andI went to see this movie with mixed feelings of anticipation andapprehension. Thanfully, only the first was justified. Ed Speleers isgreat as the eponymous hero, delivering a performance in-keeping withhis character. Jeremy Irons is brilliant as Brom (but what else can youexpect?) and Robert Carlyle is as creepy a villain as you could hopefor. Of course, certain elements from the books are disregarded to easethe transition to film, but they do not interfere with the flow of thestory. The scenery is spectacular, the sets stunning, the acting(mostly) stellar and the special effects awesome. My one sticking pointis in the casting of Galbatorix and Ajihad, two characters who need themost charisma, yet John Malkovich and Djimon Honsou are very wooden intheir delivery. A good all-round international casting broke up themonotony I deplore in most movies where the villain is English and thehero American - in this case, the hero(es) are English, one of thevillains is American and the other is English. I don't know if it wasintentional or not, but this conveyed some of the far-reaching arm ofGalbatorix. This movie is no 'Lord of the Rings' or 'Harry Potter', nordoes anyone have any right to compare them. Eragon is its own movie,despite the current trend for fantasy films. Those who aren't fans ofthe books will be able to appreciate it as well as those who are. Atriumph for all involved.

lasbookworm6 2012-05-03 21:03:22

It had potential but it crashed and burned

I knew from the TV ads that this movie would be different than thebook. However, if I knew how far it diverged from the book plot Iwouldn't have wasted my money. The main characters aside fromGalbatorix, Murtagh, and Angela were well casted, but the plot wasjerky and made little sense. This comment was from my roommate who hasnot yet read the books. I wish that script writers would realize thataccuracy to a book's plot is extremely important, did they learnnothing from the success of "The Chronicles of Narnia?" The only reasonI gave it a 5 was due to the majority of the casting and well as thelocations. I really wish I had gone to Casino Royale.

broome_lise 2012-05-03 05:07:11

I liked it!

I haven't read the book, so I can not begin to say whether the movieremained true to the book, or not! But I really enjoyed this movie. Iwouldn't give it a 10 - but definitely an 8 - it was very good. If youlike fantasy, with dragons, magic, in an historical like setting,something close to probably the middle ages, or so, full of legend, andmyth, than you got yourself a movie to watch. AND of course now I amtruly motivated to read the book ... happened when I watched HarryPotter ... now I gotta read this book too! Usually, more often thannot, I prefer the books - only time will tell! All I can say now is Ihope they make a movie for each of the books of the trilogy ... so farthere are only 2 of the 3 books done. I'm really looking forward toreading the first 2, as I await the last. Neat story line! Verycreative! :)

Larry Boucher 2012-05-02 06:45:32

Great Book - terrible movie

I really liked the book "Eragon". It was intriguing, well thought out,and made sense. I do realize that there are time constraints and thatdirectors do like to interpret stories their way. If this was whathappened to the movie then I would have been disappointed that it didnot follow the book, but instead I -would have- enjoyed it as a standalone movie/story.The problem was that this waste of time did not even have a plot, storyline, or logical meaning. It was just a bunch of scenes that when puttogether made no sense at all. If I had never read the book it wouldstill have been a real stinker. If you look at the box office receiptsyou'll see what I mean. I feel sorry for the author and I would love tosee a real director get a hold of this and do it right. There is stilla chance that this could be a real money maker for someone with thetalent to do it.

Crystyan Crystyan 2012-05-01 13:14:40

A good story but a bad film

Let's see..... the movie sucks. I am one of the people who read thebook and the movie is almost completely different. For example Saphirashe grew in a couple of months not in a second and she didn't knew hername till Eragon went to Bron and asked him a couple a of names. Somecharacters are missing(the blacksmith, the butcher's daughter, twodwarfs and so on)that are crucial for the next part. Brom was killed byan "ra'zac" not by Durza. The city was underground and they didn't saidthat is was the greatest of the dwarfs. Aria was half dead when Eragonfound her and she didn't told him anything about her on top of this shenearly killed her when he entered her mind, in the movie Aria kneweverything about him. My biggest problem was that they made Saphirawith feathers!!?? Dragons don't have feathers.Many other mistakes are in the film but I won't reveal all of them.If you want to enjoy a good story read the book, Paolini did an amazingthing witch is ruined by a bad "regizor"p.s. excuse my English and that I mixed all the ideas

llewellyn-4 2012-04-28 12:24:19

A great fantasy film

As Director Steven Fangmeier said, this is not LOTR or Harry Potter,it's a great fantasy story on it's own. I watched the movie beforereading the book. I loved it the first time, watched it another 2 timesand went to buy the Alegaësia boxset. I read both books non-stop, andwhat an incredible read. After I finished the books, I went back towatch Eragon one more time, and I still love the movie. You can nevercompare a movie to the book, but I think they did a great job of themovie script. The way that they changed some of the main characters'personalities and even locations and the final battle scene wasessential for the big screen. The movie wasn't overly dramatic like thelast two Harry Potter films, and I think they did a great job ofcapturing the essence of the story. I hope that they continue with thisline of production for the next two movies. If you want to compare thisto another movie, I would say "The Never Ending Story".

danny-418 2012-04-28 06:50:08

Wonderful story, OK. movie!

While it owes much of its appeal and appearance to the Lord of theRings trilogy, Eragon can stand on its own as an enjoyable fantasy foryounger viewers. Faithfully adapted from the bestselling novel byteenage author Christopher Paolini, this boy-and-his-dragon tale offersclean, fast-paced family entertainment without compromising the darkerqualities of Paolini's novel (the first in what is known as the"Inheritance" trilogy). The plot centers on 17-year-old peasant farmboy Eragon (played by appealing newcomer Ed Speleers) who discovers amysterious blue object that turns out to be an egg that eventuallyhatches to reveal Saphira, a blue-scaled dragon that quickly grows tofull-size. According to prophecy, Eragon is destined to be adragon-rider like those who once protected a benevolent kingdom, thusreviving an ancient conflict against the army of King Galbatorix (JohnMalkovich), a former dragon rider who turned to evil, now in alliancewith a! dark-magic "Shade" sorcerer named Durza (Robert Carlyle). Whilethe movie serves up familiar fantasy elements and offers little ifanything new to fans of the genre (or anyone who's read the books ofAnne McCaffrey and Ursula K. Le Guin), it's visually impressive(especially the dragon scenes, with Rachel Weisz providing thetelepathic "voice" of Saphira) and full of timeless wisdom, much of itdelivered by Eragon's heroic mentor Brom (Jeremy Irons), himself aformer dragon rider with memories of past battles and hope for Eragon'sfuture. Add a fair warrior-maiden named Arya (Sienna Guillory) andyou've got all the ingredients for a worthwhile (if not particularlyoriginal) fantasy that points directly to a sequel. Whether that's agood or a bad thing is up to individual viewers to decide.

margrettgreat 2012-04-25 15:30:46

This film plays more like a bad SNL skit parodying the Lord of The Ring.

Horrible and very funny adaptation of the popular children's book thatplays like a bad SNL skit that is trying to parody "The Lord of theRings" than the book that it's based on. The screenplay is a major messwith dialog that even little kids would find stupid and theperformances are almost all laughably bad. Jeremy Irons and JohnMalkovich should be ashamed of themselves for even agreeing to be inthis film and Djimon Hounsou should start reading his scripts a littlemore carefully. The only redeeming thing about this crappy film is thegreat voice over work of Rachel Weisz, who manages to give the dragonSaphira more talent and range in terms of solid acting than all thehuman actors working in the film. The C.G.I work done for Saphira wasalso well done, making her more lifelike than her human co-stars aswell. Outside of Rachel Weisz's great voice acting and the great specialeffects for the Dragon Saphira, this movie is more and less a badcomedy that did not deserve nether of them.

knight_armour 2012-04-25 08:22:56

Bastardizing Fantasy

Ever since Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter came to the silverscreen, there seems to be no end in sight for fantasy films and books.I for one appreciate it because I would not spend the time reading fatbooks on fiction. Even so, if the Eragon book is anything like themovie, I'm disappointed. The plot in general is pretty standard. Evilking. Rebels. Hero. Pretty girl. Dragon. And these days, spectacularspecial effects and CGI. I found the story rather weak. There wasnothing quite novel in the way say the first Harry Potter movie was. Itlacked imagination and even seemed to jump from scene to scene (barelymaking it over the cliff, in a manner of speaking). I knew this camefrom the mind of a 17 year old but am afraid it reeks of that too much.Unless you're a sucker for anything to do with dragons, elves and allthat, you may as well just skip this thing. To be honest, I had justwatched 'The Prestige' (excellent!) the day before so it set the barpretty high for this movie. Perhaps if I had watched 'The Last Shark'instead, I would have better things to say about Eragon.

msllucasgrabeel 2012-04-23 00:25:07

It could have been worse.

Okay, sure it wasn't half as good as the book, but as a movie... I'mnot quite sure.Lets focus on the positive for a bit. The voice of Saphira, who's nameescapes me, was stunning. It was just like I'd thought it would be. Thescenery was really beautiful, as some of you have said before. The CGIwas cool, I loved the final fight scene when they're with the Varden.The choice of actors was good, but the script was, admittedly, rubbish. The film seemed very rushed and loads of it was missed out. And theurgals, what was going on there? Urgals are supposed to have horns, andGalbatorix was barely in it. Most of the characters weren't in it asmuch as they should of been. Yet to me they looked the part. If you don't compare it to the book, then it's an okay movie. Sometimesyou don't have to analyse it to death. It reminded me of Stormbreaker in the fact that it could have been atleast an hour longer and they still missed out huge chunks of the film.It really bugs me.Oh and will everybody stop calling Christopher Paolini's work achildren's book. It makes it sound like it's written for five yearolds. Which it's not. Read the book as well as watching the film andthen fill little bits in.I love Murtagh! Jo xxx

jordancasu 2012-04-22 05:16:54

What Was So Wrong With the book's Story, I Ask

Where to Begin? The Screenplay was the worst adaptation of a book'sstory line I have ever seen I was just so disappointed by the fact thatthey just did not stick with the beautiful Story that Paolini hascreated.Let alone the fact that the movie had no flow, you can'tunderstand the story at all (for example that Eragon suddenly learnswords from the ancient language that he has never heard before, and allof a sudden he is an able swordsman when in the book it took himmonths) and WHY may I ask WHY did they invent such stupid "new" wordsin the ancient language when it took Paolini so long to invent a newunique one,I imagine what it was like for people that have not read thebook.Now lets talk about the acting, CRAP from the most part of theactors, poor Jeremy Irons seemed to be put in a world he did notunderstand rather than being a former dragon Rider Himself. No DWARFS!? its an Abomination, WHY WHY the hell did they do that, I could notwait to get out of the theater and tell people how Horrible This MovieWas, They ruined a great story just so they could sell Toys andVideogames, Here you have a chance to do a great movie (From aWonderful Book I might add) and you all Blew it.The Soundtrack deservesone word "CRAP" the music sounded like they copy and pasted leftoversongs from LOTR, Star Wars or any other "epic" movie. I will quitwasting time insulting the movie. and instead I will give you thereason I give it a 5 out of 10 and not one,although the movie left medead inside I Love the first two books Paolini wrote (Eragon andEldest), this movie deserves more because its part of a great story(altough the people at FOX failed to bring this story to life) I reallyhope if they make Eldest they will do a better job and try harder. Readthe Book I Beg all of you who haven't READ THE BOOK!! This Movie Suckednot because it was a "bad" movie but because its a bad Adaptation of aGreat Story. I praise Paolini and I hope that all who was a part in themaking of this Picture Regret what they have done.